Re: [PATCH 2/8] sequencer: introduce the `merge` command

From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2018, 21:26 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xrWc9mO8AuVomUbFr-JBfzmggCs9qE4yois27t4drHSMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1801182214350.31@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> Would it be possible to open the editor with the supplied text when
>> there's no commit?  The text after <rev> must be oneline only..
>
> I actually want to avoid that because my main use case is fire-and-forget,
> i.e. I want to edit only the todo list and then (barring any merge
> conflicts) I do not want to edit anything anymore.
>

Agreed, for the case where we copy a commit message, I do not want the editor either.

> But I guess we could special-case the thing where `-` is specified as
> "merge commit message provider" and an empty oneline is provided?
>

It's for when there is a new merge, for when we are creating a new one using "-", yes.

Show 12 quoted lines

>> It's difficult to reword merges because of the nature of rebase
>> interactive, you can't just re-run the rebase command and use
>> "reword".
>>
>> I suppose you could cheat by putting in an "edit" command that let you
>> create an empty commit with a message...
>
> Or you could "cheat" by adding `exec git commit --amend`...
>
> Seriously again, I have no good idea how to provide an equivalent to the
> `reword` verb that would work on merge commits...
>

Given that there is a work around, and I doubt it's that common, I'm not sure we need one, plus i have no idea what verb to use....

We could allow reword on its own to simply reword the top commit?

That being said, since there's a simple-ish workaruond using "stop", or "exec git commit --amend" I don't see this as being important enough to worry about now.

Thanks, Jake